The Kerala High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Munsiff's order restoring a suit dismissed for default. The Court found no impropriety in the trial court's discretion and dismissed the revision.
Revision petition closed; impugned order restored even though it was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931
CRP.No. 587 of 2009 --------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/08/2009 IN IA.1549/2009 IN OS.121/2008 of ADDL.M.C.,KOTTAYAM
REVN. PETITIONER:
GEORGE JOSEPH, NEENDOOPARAMBIL, LAKKATTOOR KARA, KOOROPPADA.
BY ADV. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE MR.THOMAS T.VARGHESE MR.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM MR.SUNANDA SUKUMARAN MR.AFSANA ASHRAF
RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF:
PRASAD KUMAR, MULLOORU HOUSE, PALLIKKATHODU KARA, ANIKKAD.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
C.R.P.No.587 of 2009
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009
O R D E R
Defendant in O.S.No.121 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kottayam has filed this revision challenging the order passed by the learned Munsiff restoring the above suit which had been dismissed for default. Suit was listed twice for trial and the second time it was dismissed for default owing to deliberate latches and default on the part of the respondent/plaintiff in prosecuting the suit, is the case of the petitioner/defendant to resist the restoration application moved under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff canvassed a case that since he had to attend a training he could not appear before the court when the suit was posted for trial. The reason so canvassed was shown to be wrong by producing a document showing there was no such training on that date, according to the counsel for the defendant. Still, the court below allowed the application for restoration of the suit subject to payment of Rs.800/-, is the grievance raised. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this revision.
2
C.R.P.No.587 of 2009 - O
after appreciating the materials tendered, was of the view that
one more opportunity has to be extended to the respondent/plaintiff to have a decision in the suit on merits. Restoration of the suit dismissed for default was allowed compensating the injury likely to be suffered by the petitioner/defendant directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.800/-. Suit dismissed for default and ordered to be restored
to file under the impugned order is seen instituted in 2008.
Revision petition is closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
bkn/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Munsiff's order restoring a suit dismissed for default.
Whether the discretion exercised by the learned Munsiff in allowing restoration of the suit was improper.
Whether the revision petition against the order restoring the suit has merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
George Joseph
Prasad Kumar
S.S.Satheesachandan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
